Gallaher v. Texagon Mills, Inc.
Opinion
KNOX, District Judge.
Under the law of New Jersey, the director'.of a corporation whose interest in a matter disqualifies him from voting upon a resolution concerning the same, cannot be counted for the purpose of ascertaining whether a quorum is present when the vote is taken. A director so disqualified by personal interest loses, pro hac vice, his character as director and so cannot be counted. Enright-v. Heckscher, 2 Cir. 240 F. 863, 872 , By a parity of reasoning, I should think that the officers and directors of a corporation against which they have instituted suit should not be permitted, in effect, to deprive the defendant of a defense that may be sufficient to defeat the action. In order that no such result may come about, the officers and directors of the defendant who believe that the corporation has a valid defense should be permitted to protect its rights, and to do so, in the name of the corporation. See Warwick Sport-wear Co .v. Simons, Sup., 13 N.Y.S.2d 321 and In re Bernheimer, Sup., 43 N.Y.S.2d 300 .
For this reason, I think the authority under which the defendant’s attorneys come into court is sufficient.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Application of Roy L. Shapiro for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. United States of America
- France Packing Co. v. Dailey
- Eastern Oklahoma Television Co. v. Ameco, Inc.
- Eastern Oklahoma Television Company, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, and Clear-Vue, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, ( Below) v. Ameco, Inc., a Corporation ( Below) v
Most recent
- Eastern Oklahoma Television Company, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, and Clear-Vue, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, ( Below) v. Ameco, Inc., a Corporation ( Below) v
- Eastern Oklahoma Television Co. v. Ameco, Inc.
- Application of Roy L. Shapiro for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. United States of America
- France Packing Co. v. Dailey
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.